Just happens there’s a decent one handy: a directive ordering the US Embassy in Tel Aviv relocated to Jerusalem.

Though even the thought runs counter to the Obama record on Israel, make no mistake: For the president, the timing of such an order could not be more perfect, and the advantages — at home as well as abroad — more compelling.

Start with Congress. In sharp contrast to his order on illegal immigrants, where the president aims to supplant Congress, this one would use presidential authority to carry out something Congress says it wants done.

Back in 1995, the House and Senate passed a law requiring our embassy to the Jewish state be moved to its real capital no later than 1999. The bill became law with overwhelming bipartisan support: by a vote of 93 to 5 in the Senate, and by 274 to 37 in the House. Those Senate votes included “yeas” from the men who now serve as Obama’s vice president and secretary of state.

Some argued then the law was an unconstitutional congressional intrusion into foreign-policy decisions that properly belong to the president. Congress split the difference with an amendment giving the president the authority to suspend the embassy move if he determines it “is necessary to protect the national-security interests of the United States.”

Every six months since, every president — Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama — has done just that. And yet another is due very soon.

Now, the advantage for the Israelis of an Obama executive order moving the embassy is obvious: Notwithstanding United Nations-style pipe dreams about an international city, the facts on the ground are that Jerusalem is Israel’s capital, and, so long as there is an Israel, it will remain so.

American recognition of this fact would be taken by Israelis as a welcome sign President Obama is committed to the connection of the Jewish people to the heart of the Jewish homeland.

But given the notoriously frosty relations between Barack Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu, what’s in it for 44?

The answer is plenty. For one thing, by now even President Obama must have recognized his Cairo speech has not led the nations of the Muslim Middle East to rethink their fundamental positions and oppositions.

In fact, there’s a good argument that the president’s foreign policy has only led them to harden their positions, to the point where Obama’s influence in the region has become almost nil.

From Iran’s refusal to agree to a nuke deal to Syria’s defiance of his red line to the Palestinian Authority’s partnership with Hamas, the players in the region manifestly have concluded they can do as they please without worrying about the White House.

An order to move our embassy to Jerusalem would show them the president’s patience is not unlimited. It would also be a neat end run around some of the president’s chief nemeses.

Start with Netanyahu. By relocating the US embassy to Jerusalem, the president would have instant credibility to oppose Netanyahu more vigorously without being thought of as anti-Israel.

Think of it as George W. Bush in reverse. Bush’s solid support for Israel enabled him to become the first sitting American president to say the Palestinians should have a state of their own.

In the same way, Obama’s record of favoring the Palestinians should give him the credentials to recognize Jerusalem as the Israeli capital without being thought anti-Arab.

Perhaps that might open the way to other progress in the Middle East. Even if it didn’t, it would render moot a pesky case brought by Jerusalem-born US citizens that could have the Supreme Court forcing the State Department to allow such citizens to list “Jerusalem, Israel” in their passports.

It would also spare the administration of the ritual embarrassment whenever some reporter asks an administration spokesman what the capital of Israel is.

True, moving the embassy to Jerusalem may be less popular inside the Democratic Party than inside Hamas, as we saw when a plank about Jerusalem was booed at the 2012 Democratic convention. Obama put that fire out, but the next Democratic candidate for president might not find it so easy.

Finally, the move would pre-empt Republicans. Last year, Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ) introduced legislation that would not only have the United States recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and relocate our embassy there, but would strip out the waiver provision presidents use to stop it.

Wouldn’t it serve the president better to take the initiative himself rather than let the GOP force an awkward showdown?

An Obama executive order relocating the embassy would be smart, bold and counterintuitive — and restore some sense in the region he’s still in command. Alas, his antipathy to Israel and its prime minister likely precludes him from even considering it.
But it’s his loss.